What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

A skeptical look at medical practices
JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Postby JJM » Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:50 pm

Paul Sherman wrote "whether by hours or years, his life was shortened by chiropractic "care"."

That is exactly right, and the neck-snap that killed the boy has no known therapeutic value. Chiropractors usually defend the practice by denying the risk, or by saying that the risk is less than one in a million (they never point to a proven benefit). Every procedure has some risk; but, there is no reason to incur a risk, no matter how small, when there is no benefit.

"Whereas anecdotal evidence and studies of the literature indicate that cervical manipulation may be effective in relieving tension headache, a 1998 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that neck manipulation 'does not seem to have a positive effect on episodic tension-type headache.'"
http://www.chirobase.org/17QA/freq.html

More questions on neck adjustments, and general chiropractic
http://www.chirobase.org/17QA/index.html

And a more extensive article on the problem
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... troke.html

Joe

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

it appeaar that something unfortunate did happen

Postby rational doc » Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:01 pm

the issue is, is it directly attributable to the manipulation - please give a reference - otherwise it is strictly hearsay - and waht you fail to mention - was the manipulation done on a person who was a proper candidate for manipulation - if he wasn't than it should not have been done obviously, and was the manipulation technique the right technique to use under the circumstances and was the technique applied properly??

it may have been the chiropractor and not chiropractic at fault if this actually happened,

you wrote: Maybe he would have ripped it himself an hour later craning his neck to peer at a pretty girl. Maybe he would have ripped it years later playing tackle football with some friends.

precisely my point - these things happen spontaneously and with other trauma and non- traumatic events - look up stroke at beauty parlors

when someone has an event and a recent manipulation - of course it is the manipulation at fault what else could it be ????

very bad science in my opinion - can it happen sure, does it maybe

again all procedures have a risk - people die from poorly administered medication or botched surgeries - it is the particular doctor's fault not "medicines" fault , why do you blame a whole profession if someone f's up

as far as therapeutic value - geez all you quote is research that can be disputed, obviously the fact that millions of people that show benefit from this form of care should be ignored, and that this type of care is safer than many medical treatments for the same condition should also be ignored


you skeptics have an agenda, and any one with half a brain can see that on "quackwatch"

quackwatch is a joke in the medical community - nobody takes there information seriously - all it does is work up and scare the mis-informed and prevents them from recieving care that they may need

you guys forget that i deal with quality of life issues in most cases, more than life and death, if i can get a 60 year old lady out of chronic hip pain that she has been having for 15 years, a condition that persists after 2 hip surgeries to remove bursal sacs and persists after 8 months of physical therapy, by using manipulation / mobiliztion and therapeutic exercise - then i have done a good thing, this lady has her life back and can actually pick up her grandkids and hug them

my job is to aid in the relief of pain and suffering - i will use any tool available that works, period

manipulation properly applied to the right person works - end of story,

you guys would rather allow people to not get the help that they deserve

are there problems with chiropractic, yes, similiar to medicine - especially physical medicine,

do doctors kill people due to neglect, over treatment, under treatment, wrong diagnosis, wrong treatment - every doctor has contributed to the death of one of his patients at some time during his career - garunteed

i don't think that i could say the same thing about chiropractors with the same accuracy

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

read something else besides quack watch and chirobase

Postby rational doc » Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:23 pm

actually talk to surgeons and md's who work in the field and do not make their living by bashing other professions

the docs that run quackwatch make their living by spreading fear, they have a monetary investment in this, if people weren't scared to think there was a problem they would go broke

these people need to gain attention to sell books and use you guys as willing (or unwilling?) accomplices to make them money

i don't think that quack watch is out there to save lives, it is out there to make money for the owners of the website, and the booksellers

are you guys that naive??

User avatar
jj
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1820
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:13 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Curmudgeon
Location: Under the Evergreens
Contact:

Re: read something else besides quack watch and chirobase

Postby jj » Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:09 pm

rational doc wrote:the docs that run quackwatch make their living by spreading fear, they have a monetary investment in this, if people weren't scared to think there was a problem they would go broke


Really? I presume that you, then, can cite clear, compelling, testable and verifiable evidence in regard to this claim?

You can start by proving the value of chiropractic.
Why does an infallable book have to be constantly revised?

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

more food for thought

Postby rational doc » Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:56 pm

sorry common sense got in the way - quack watch and the doctors who work for it is a labor of love - it takes no money to keep it up and all the people running it are independantly wealthy and are doint this because it is the right thing to do - is that what you want to here

maybe i was being harsch but they obviously benefit from the sale of books, advertising, seminars etc - therefore they have a monetary stake in this contraversy - i don't believe that medicine solely exists for the good of mankind either - there is money involved and greedy people - that's what drives healthcare - the ability to make money along with helping people, this is capitalism and it works

now before you totally write off the following because it is a chiropractic article, read it and look up the actual article, then discuss it

Report confirms: Adjustment unlikely to cause stroke

A just-released study sponsored by NCMIC Chiropractic Solutions shows that a causative relationship between chiropractic manipulation and stroke is highly unlikely.

“Current Concepts: Spinal Manipulation and Cervical Artherial Incidents 2005,” available at http://www.ncmic.com/cva, states, “There is an associative relationship between the two because people may go to chiropractors for relief of stroke-related symptoms.”

The report admonishes chiropractors to be alert for signs of stroke, avoid neck manipulation on those patients, and to get emergency intervention. It says, “The signs and symptoms of a stroke may be subtle and may mimic other conditions, so it can be hard to tell if a serious problem exists.”

The monograph was prepared for NCMIC by John J. Triano, DC, PhD, and Greg Kawchuck, BSc, DC, MSc, PhD. The paper is being made available to each of the 18 chiropractic colleges insured by NCMIC.

The paper outlines a number of key findings and advises how to proceed if a patient is suspected of having stroke symptoms.

Source: NCMIC, http://www.ncmic.com

User avatar
jj
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1820
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:13 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Curmudgeon
Location: Under the Evergreens
Contact:

Re: more food for thought

Postby jj » Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:32 pm

rational doc wrote:Report confirms: Adjustment unlikely to cause stroke

A just-released study sponsored by NCMIC Chiropractic Solutions shows that a causative relationship between chiropractic manipulation and stroke is highly unlikely.

“Current Concepts: Spinal Manipulation and Cervical Artherial Incidents 2005,” available at http://www.ncmic.com/cva, states, “There is an associative relationship between the two because people may go to chiropractors for relief of stroke-related symptoms.”

The report admonishes chiropractors to be alert for signs of stroke, avoid neck manipulation on those patients, and to get emergency intervention. It says, “The signs and symptoms of a stroke may be subtle and may mimic other conditions, so it can be hard to tell if a serious problem exists.”

The monograph was prepared for NCMIC by John J. Triano, DC, PhD, and Greg Kawchuck, BSc, DC, MSc, PhD. The paper is being made available to each of the 18 chiropractic colleges insured by NCMIC.

The paper outlines a number of key findings and advises how to proceed if a patient is suspected of having stroke symptoms.

Source: NCMIC, http://www.ncmic.com


Ok, where is the mainstream peer review for that? I can also find papers on the net that assert that the earth is divided into 4 days per day, that demagnatizing CD's changes how they sound, that pebbles can improve the sound in a room, that cables with "liquid dielectric" sound better, ...

But where's the mainstream peer review, and the external confirmation?
Why does an infallable book have to be constantly revised?

User avatar
jj
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1820
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:13 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Curmudgeon
Location: Under the Evergreens
Contact:

Re: more food for thought

Postby jj » Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:34 pm

rational doc wrote:sorry common sense got in the way - quack watch and the doctors who work for it is a labor of love - it takes no money to keep it up and all the people running it are independantly wealthy and are doint this because it is the right thing to do - is that what you want to here


Well, first, I think you meant "hear" but I'm not listening, I'm reading.

Second, you made a claim about Quackwatch. It's up to you to provide testable, verifiable, externally confirmable evidence for your claim about Quackwatch. How about it?

Now, as to your claim to common sense, we wouldn't be seeing an attempt at ad populum, would we?

Could you please show your clear evidence for your accusations, or perhaps not make them if you don't really have anything to back them up with?
Why does an infallable book have to be constantly revised?

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

sorry for typing errors - my bad - working on it though!

Postby rational doc » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:11 pm

as far as my accusations for quackwatch -

where am i wrong?

1. it is a business enterprise that makes money

2. the money goes to people who own the business

3. more contoversy brings more people to his website - potential buyers for his books and dues payers for organizations that he is involved with

did he create this contoversy ? probably no, does he add fuel to the fire, yes, does he benefit from all this, i cannot see how he could not

quackwatch does not provide a forum where both sides can have a say in the topics - quackwatch shows only one side of the coin and is biased

this bias is evident to anyone who reads it that does not have their own agenda to support

User avatar
jj
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1820
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:13 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Curmudgeon
Location: Under the Evergreens
Contact:

Re: sorry for typing errors - my bad - working on it though!

Postby jj » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:56 am

rational doc wrote:as far as my accusations for quackwatch -

where am i wrong?


How can anyone tell? You haven't provided a single bit of evidence for your rather extraordinary assertion. Can you please provide some clear, incontrovertable evidence, or simply back off and admit that your attack on Quackwatch is unjustified?

1. it is a business enterprise that makes money


As are chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, and home pizza delivery stores.

2. the money goes to people who own the business


As are chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, and home pizza delivery stores.

3. more contoversy brings more people to his website - potential buyers for his books and dues payers for organizations that he is involved with


Then you're trying to help him make money? Is that what you're saying?

did he create this contoversy ? probably no, does he add fuel to the fire, yes, does he benefit from all this, i cannot see how he could not


Argument from ignorance is not proof. You can not see many things, for instance, you can not see the core of the earth. That does not mean that the core of the earth creates a controversy, or that it is somehow engaged in illicit practices.

quackwatch does not provide a forum where both sides can have a say in the topics - quackwatch shows only one side of the coin and is biased


In order to prove bias you must prove that it's wrong. You have failed entirely to produce any evidence that anything there is wrong.

You attempt to pass off the idea that "all ideas are the same", when of course some ideas are right, some are mostly right, some are mostly wrong, and some are garbage.

Do you also argue that when somebody says the brick they dropped hit their toe, that people who argue that gravity does not exist must have equal time?

Do you argue that when someone asserts the moon is not made of green cheese, that green-cheesists must have equal time?

"Equal time" does not equal truth, despite your attempt to suggest otherwise.

this bias is evident to anyone who reads it that does not have their own agenda to support


In order to show bias you must show that something is inaccurate. You have not done so.

Would it be biased of me to assert, when we are discussing the behavior of bricks released from the hand, while standing stationary on and relative to the surface of the earth, to assert that "bricks fall down"?

That's what you're arguing for.

Would you care to explain how you can question the agenda of everyone who disagrees with you, but pretend to remain innocent in your own agenda?
Why does an infallable book have to be constantly revised?

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10243
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Postby Pyrrho » Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:15 am

For the sake of discussion, let's ignore what Quackwatch says, and look at some clinical studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... &DB=pubmed

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/conte ... /32/5/1054

Results—Results for those aged <45 years showed VBA cases to be 5 times more likely than controls to have visited a chiropractor within 1 week of the VBA (95% CI from bootstrapping, 1.32 to 43.87). Additionally, in the younger age group, cases were 5 times as likely to have had >=3 visits with a cervical diagnosis in the month before the case’s VBA date (95% CI from bootstrapping, 1.34 to 18.57). No significant associations were found for those aged >=45 years.

Conclusions—While our analysis is consistent with a positive association in young adults, potential sources of bias are also discussed. The rarity of VBAs makes this association difficult to study despite high volumes of chiropractic treatment. Because of the popularity of spinal manipulation, high-quality research on both its risks and benefits is recommended.


Clinical perceptions of risk

RESULTS: For the 10-year period 1988 to 1997, there were 23 cases of vertebral artery dissection after cervical manipulation reported to the CCPA that represents 85% of practicing chiropractors in Canada. Based on the survey, an estimated 134,466,765 cervical manipulations were performed during this 10-year period. This gave a calculated rate of vertebral artery dissection after manipulation of 1:5,846,381 cervical manipulations. Based on the number of practicing chiropractors and neurologists during the period of this study, 1 of every 48 chiropractors and one of every two neurologists would have been made aware of a vascular complication from cervical manipulation that was reported to the CCPA during their practice lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: The perceived risk after cervical manipulation by chiropractors and neurologists is related to the probability that a practitioner will be made aware of such an incident. The difference in the number of chiropractors (approximately 3,840 in 1997) and neurologists (approximately 4,000 in 1997) in active practice and the fact that each patient who has a stroke after manipulation will likely be seen by only one chiropractor but by three or more neurologists partly explains the difference in experience and the perception of risk of these two professions. This selection or referral bias is important in shaping the clinical opinions of the various disciplines and distorts discussion on the true incidence of these complications of cervical manipulation. The nature of this study, however, describes the likelihood that a clinician will be made aware of such an event and cannot be interpreted as describing the actual risk of stroke after manipulation.


Frequency and clinical predictors of adverse reactions

RESULTS: Of the 280 participants (83%) who responded, 85 (30.4%) had 212 adverse symptoms as a result of chiropractic care. Increased neck pain or stiffness was the most common symptom, reported by 25% of the participants. Less common were headache and radiating pain. Patients randomized to manipulation were more likely than those randomized to mobilization to have an adverse symptom occurring within 24 hours of treatment (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83, 2.49). Heat and EMS were only weakly associated with adverse symptoms (heat: OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.54, 1.62; EMS: OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.63, 1.89). Moderate-to-severe neck disability at baseline was strongly associated with adverse neurologic symptoms (OR = 5.70, 95% CI = 1.49, 21.80). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that adverse reactions to chiropractic care for neck pain are common and that despite somewhat imprecise estimation, adverse reactions appear more likely to follow cervical spine manipulation than mobilization. Given the possible higher risk of adverse reactions and lack of demonstrated effectiveness of manipulation over mobilization, chiropractors should consider a conservative approach for applying manipulation to their patients, especially those with severe neck pain.


Comparison to whiplash[

CONCLUSIONS: Perceived causation of reported cases of cervical artery dissection is more frequently attributed to chiropractic manipulative therapy procedures than to motor vehicle collision related injuries, even though the comparative biomechanical evidence makes such causation unlikely. The direct evidence suggests that the healthy vertebral artery is not at risk from properly performed chiropractic manipulative procedures.


Case history

We present a case of multiple cervical spine disc herniation in a previously healthy patient following chiropractic manipulation. The aim of this paper is to review the medical literature about the complications following spinal manipulation to emphasize the potential risks of this widely extended therapeutic procedure, performed in many cases by non-qualified personnel without medical training.


On the one hand, the risks cannot and should not be denied. On the other hand, the risks may be exaggerated. As with any medical procedure, that which is unnecessary probably shouldn't be performed. Take it easy on people's necks...
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Postby JJM » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:54 am

I have stressed that dangerous manipulations by chiropractors are an important problem. However, the more common problem with chiropractors stems from their "education." Usually, they are taught the absurd notions that spinal manipulations can treat nearly every condition (ear infections, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, etc.) and that they are equivalent to primary care physicians. There is no support for these ideas.

As a result of this misinformation, the commonest danger with chiros is that they try to treat conditions that need real, medical attention; thus allowing the problem to deteriorate.

They also offer bad, medical advice. I recently heard a chiro on the local news who claimed that vaccination of children was more dangerous than beneficial. Go to http://www.iom.edu and search for "vaccine," the dangers are unsupported and the benefits are overwhelming.

In addition to bad information, they charge for useless treatments for real disease and regular, "maintenance" treatments for healthy people. Both serve only to transfer money from the public to the chiro's account. I cannot endorse such fleecing, even if the perpetrator is sincere in his/her belief.

The rational chiros, those who reject subluxations and recognize that they offer little more than masseurs, are rare and hard to identify (beyond their membership in the National Association of Chiropractic Medicine). Why not just go to a doctor?

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

it continues

Postby rational doc » Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:04 pm

my agenda - none, just stating real world circumstances and the point of view of MD's practicing physical medicine - as far as i can see - no one here has admitted to have real world experience dealing with people that can benefit from manipulation, no one here has has admitted to having experience in charting a patient's progress in functional ability and pain management

i use what is productive in creating efficient changes in my patient's quality of life -

in real life, manipulation is no more dangerous (when used approrpriately) than many other treatments i use,
i use neck manipulation because it creates changes in range of motion and reported pain - my patients then need less or no pain medication - this is a bad thing

as far as massage producing the same results - massage affects muscles and tendons, manipulation affects inter articular joint range of motion - two different animals - they need to be treated differently -

unfortunately you show as much understanding of massage as you do of physical medicine

as far as the national council of chiropractic medicine ( excuse me if i get the name wrong) i remember seeing that they have very limited support and numbers - i think they are more right wing in the field as opposed to the "straight" chiropractors that are exposing chiropractic theory as fact

the chiropractors i have met could be be considered moderates - i get many referrals from them - usually with accurate diagnosis of the patient's problem

you know what i usually get from the MD's that refer to me - diagnosis of "back pain", "neck Pain", "sciatica" - these do not tell me anything more than a subjective complaint - the MD is not diagnosing the why and how come , the tissues involved - the pt's complain of this too -

in reality we have pt's - many of whom have only 2 actual years in clinical training ( first 2 are pre-med) - trying to diagnosis what is actually wrong with the patient

pt's are not allowed to diagnose in NYS because they are not trained and liscensed to do it, however in real life they do it because the md's do not

by the way chiropractors are trained to diagnose - just like md's some are better than others and some don't think they have to - those that don't think they need to are a vocal but fringe group

the problem with some chiro's - this is where i agree with you ids that they exposed theory and philosphy as fact - but us md's are also guilty of that one

as far as the subluxation goes, like i said before in my field we call it a differnt name , but it is the same animal, get over it already

have mechanical lesions and their affects been adequately described, from what i have seen in PT, Physiatry and osteopathy - it is a work in progress with many theories being put forth in an attempt to understand something - isn't this how we try to understand the world around us?

i think you are branding all chiropractors to be the same basically - they either belong to the right or left (as i described) - like i said from personal experience they are in the middle - the ones i deal with

how many of you have regular dealings with about 75 chiropractors?

i do

as far as quack watch - guess i stepped on a few toes, i gues i should know better than to have a different opinion, (one that i formed on my own without having to have someone spoon feed it to me)
it is obvious that they are there to bash chiropractors and anything else that is not "main stream" - problem is that some of these non - mainstream ideas and procedures eventually end up becoming accepted and become mainstream - remember the medical heretic who had the insane impossible idea that gastric ulcers could be the result of an infection - he was ridiculed for years, and he had only his own research and a theory to back himself up

my point is that we do not know exactly how the whole body works and how all the systems inter- relate, health care is a work in progress and i think that it is really stupid not to give other theories fair consideration and adequate research - not enough has been done to adequately research mechanical lesions and the effect they have on the human body - we have conflicting research, bad research, good research and clinical patient responses that all need to be correlated better

my opinion is that chiropractic and manipulation needs more and BETTER research, it can be used responsibly and effectivly at this point though
( by PT, MD, Do and chiros )

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

pyrrho makes some good points with his(?) references

Postby rational doc » Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:54 pm

On the one hand, the risks cannot and should not be denied. On the other hand, the risks may be exaggerated. As with any medical procedure, that which is unnecessary probably shouldn't be performed. Take it easy on people's necks...

all therapies should applied with caution and respect for the peson you are treating

unfortunately deciding what is necessary depends on the the individual doctor you go to, that is why medicine is still part art and not just science

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Postby corymaylett » Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:32 pm

rational doc wrote:problem is that some of these non - mainstream ideas and procedures eventually end up becoming accepted and become mainstream - remember the medical heretic who had the insane impossible idea that gastric ulcers could be the result of an infection - he was ridiculed for years, and he had only his own research and a theory to back himself up

Good point. However, it also shows how science is open to embracing what was once regarded as improbable. Mostly, it just takes enough evidence to overcome the doubts.

Chiropractic, on the other hand, has failed to make a convincing case based upon evidence. On the contrary, all evidence indicates that the foundation upon which chiropractic is founded (the origin of disease and subsequent treatments) is just plain wrong.

Of course, some factions in the field have modified their positions and concentrated, instead, on what limited benefits can be obtain through hands-on manipulations (essentially therapists). The majority of chiropractors, however, still, to one degree or another, hold onto goofy 19th-century theories that just plain fly in the face of evidence.

If chiropractic is ever to be accepted into mainstream medicine, it must do as osteopaths have done, and abandon the aspects of the profession that have just plain been proven to be wrong.

rational doc wrote:my point is that we do not know exactly how the whole body works and how all the systems inter- relate, health care is a work in progress

I agree, there are huge mysteries associated with how the body works. The more we discover, the more we realize that we've only scratched the surface of the complexities.

On the other hand, this research and the evidence that is has uncovered has convincingly demonstrated that some theories and past assumptions have just plain been in error — the underpinning theories of chiropractic being among them.

rational doc wrote:i think that it is really stupid not to give other theories fair consideration and adequate research - not enough has been done to adequately research mechanical lesions and the effect they have on the human body - we have conflicting research, bad research, good research and clinical patient responses that all need to be correlated better)

Yes, I couldn't agree more, but it also makes no sense to hold onto theories that just haven’t panned out — either through lack of evidence and/or contradicting evidence.

Whatever useful benefits can be obtained through chiropractic, its practitioners will be always be suspect and ridiculed by mainstream medicine and science until chiropractors unequivocally renounce the antiquated Palmer theories and accept and participate in standard scientific methods of research that involve standard, common-sense concepts like verifiable evidence and peer review. And to date, the chiropractic profession has failed to participate in substantial research, and failed to introduce new and plausible scientific theories to support their positions.

Is there some practical value to Chiropractic therapy? Yes, in some situations, and some statistical research backs that. But it’s difficult to take much of anything seriously that emanates from a supposed medical profession that stubbornly clings (to one extent or another) to erroneous 19th-century theories about the causes and treatment of disease in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

response

Postby rational doc » Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:04 pm

you wrote

If chiropractic is ever to be accepted into mainstream medicine, it must do as osteopaths have done, and abandon the aspects of the profession that have just plain been proven to be wrong.

I think the point is that the chiropractors don't care if they are accepted by manistream medicine, and because of the illigal actions the AMA has taken againt them, they have historically distrusted the medical community and that the medical community has the patient's best interest always as a priority
check out Wilk vs the AMA for some background

chiropractic has had to grow and survive outside medicine because medicine has seen them as a threat to their monopoly on healthcare, so why would they want to buddy up to a group that tried to destroy them using illegal tactics?

the chiropractors i know do a decent job treating musculoskeletal problems and related health issues, the ones i know don't act like has been claimed, and don't think they are God's gift to healthcare (can i say God here? - i have seen that many skeptics are athiests- and a bit sensitive)

there are chiro's who think they can treat everything - sad to say that md's do the same thing, i get patients that have been treated with medication for mechanical musculoskeletal conditions for months and sometimes years, these people need to be treated with modalities and exercise and sometimes manipulation along with short term use of medications when necessary - not long term use of anti-inflammatories and pain killers

i personnally think that it is an ego thing, if you have a doctor (any type of doctor) with a big ego, then they treat everything and if they can't fix it it can't be fixed, good doctor's are team players and use other professionals as tools to get the job done on the patient

does medicine hold onto old theories in spite of the evidence at times, yep,

i still have doctors and surgeons that think that any type of back pain or sciatica is a disc problem - and needs surgery, couldn't be more wrong if you tried, but they still believe it because that is what they were taught and they don't keep current

it's alot of work to keep up to date, and alot easier to just dish out muscle relaxers and pain killers - hoping that the patient will get better

what happens is that the patient either gets better, gets chronic and lives with it, doesn't report continued pain to the doctor, or seeks help elsewhere

if the patient doesn't come back or doesn't continually report the pain, the doc thinks everything is OK, alot of the time this is not the case

this makes doctors think that back problems are limited and self resolving, unfortunately not the case with alot of people

i keep hearing how chiropractors think form people that don't regularly deal with them - pretty interesting

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Postby corymaylett » Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:02 am

What do the peripheral issues of doctors' egos, their shortcomings, lawsuits, monopolies, and the wishes and feelings of chiropractors have to do with making a viable argument in support of chiropractic theory? The basis upon which chiropractic is founded, and still operates, is antiquated, disproved, pseudo-biologic nonsense from the 19th century. The whole profession is rooted in the unsupported notion that most human disease is caused by misalignments of vertebrae (the mysterious "subluxation") and the supposed nerve impingements that result from them. :roll:

Despite their limited and conditional value as therapists, I fail to understand why anyone would trust a supposed profession that is still deeply attached to ignorant, antiquated baloney.

svengali
Poster
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:57 am

Postby svengali » Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:06 am

As an objective observer here who doesn't trust either chiropracters or regular doctors equally I must say that rational doc seems to put forward the best argument.

There. Just thought you'd all like to know.

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Postby corymaylett » Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:16 am

svengali wrote:As an objective observer here who doesn't trust either chiropracters or regular doctors equally I must say that rational doc seems to put forward the best argument.

I was about to ask you to elaborate on your conclusion, but then I read the following post of yours in another thread and decided that it really doesn't matter.
svengali wrote:Allow me to introduce myself. My real name is not Svengali. I am a professional psychic person just like yourself...

svengali
Poster
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:57 am

Postby svengali » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:15 am

My profession should have no bearing on whether I believe in chiropracters or not. In fact I don't. But then I don't know a lot about them. I do know about regular doctors since I go to them and I think half the time they kill you more than they cure you.

At the beginning of the thread I had no bias whatever.

I merely said that on balance I think rational doc is making a better argument. It is not my fault if the rest of you are not as convincing as he is.

He still hasn't quite convinced me yet but he is getting there.

User avatar
Sock Monkey
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:56 am

Postby Sock Monkey » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:56 am

svengali wrote:I do know about regular doctors since I go to them and I think half the time they kill you more than they cure you.


Funny, you don't look dead.
Pixy Misa's pet monkey.

svengali
Poster
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:57 am

Postby svengali » Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:54 am

I bloody well feel it.

User avatar
Sock Monkey
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:56 am

Postby Sock Monkey » Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:47 am

You should probably see a doctor about that.
Pixy Misa's pet monkey.

svengali
Poster
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:57 am

Postby svengali » Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:32 am

I would do but they are the ones who made me like that in the first place.

User avatar
Sock Monkey
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:56 am

Postby Sock Monkey » Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:03 am

I'd definitely get a second opinion in that case.
Pixy Misa's pet monkey.

svengali
Poster
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:57 am

Postby svengali » Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:20 am

Perhaps I should try a chiropracter. I haven't done that one yet.

I know a lot of psychic healers. The trouble is that I think they need a bit of help themselves.

User avatar
Sock Monkey
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:56 am

Postby Sock Monkey » Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:38 am

Maybe they should see a doctor.
Pixy Misa's pet monkey.

svengali
Poster
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:57 am

Postby svengali » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:05 pm

I'm sure they have. It doesn't appear to have done them much good. Perhaps they need to see a chiropracter.

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

boy oh boy

Postby rational doc » Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:43 pm

looks like sarcasm is a skeptic trait!

my point about egotism is that it prevents people from seeing the limits of what they can accomplish , in medicine and chiropractic, we get doctors saying they can help problems that they have no business trying to help

in chiropractic ( they are more vocal) some doc's claim to help visceral disease, in medicine we have doc's that use ineffective therapy to help problems ie. meds to help chronic or recurrent musculoskeletal conditions -short term relief, doesn't fix the cause - like using earplugs to fix your bad muffler

by the way, all the chiropractors i know "don't cling to out dated theories" like is suggested, was chiropractic off base a bit with it's theories 100 yrs ago, yep, was medicine messed up at that time, yep, does medicine still cling to outdated theories, yep, and alot of medicine is just theory and supporting clinical evidence - just like chiropractic

svengali
Poster
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:57 am

Postby svengali » Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:26 pm

Told you. This doc is good.

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Re: boy oh boy

Postby corymaylett » Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:41 pm

rational doc wrote:by the way, all the chiropractors i know "don't cling to out dated theories" like is suggested, was chiropractic off base a bit with it's theories 100 yrs ago, yep was medicine messed up at that time, yep, does medicine still cling to outdated theories, yep

Please name a few of the outdated theories that the profession of medicine stubbornly clings to. I can think of anecdotes and instances of individual incompetence, but I can think of no systemic reluctance from the profession to embrace change brought on by the results of repeatable and verified scientific research. Medicine has advanced enormously over the past 100 years — just like it will continue to advance during the next 100 years. Chiropractic has, unfortunately, only reluctantly changed as the more ridiculous underpinnings of the profession become ludicrous to even casual observers, but even this depends on the faction of the profession in question.

rational doc wrote:alot of medicine is just theory and supporting clinical evidence - just like chiropractic

Of course medicine is about theory and supporting clinical evidence. Chiropractic, on the other hand is about theory with little to no supporting clinical evidence.

User avatar
Sock Monkey
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:56 am

Re: boy oh boy

Postby Sock Monkey » Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:55 am

rational doc wrote:was medicine messed up at that time, yep, does medicine still cling to outdated theories, yep


Name one.

and alot of medicine is just theory and supporting clinical evidence


Theory and evidence is exactly what it should be.

just like chiropractic


Where's the evidence?
Pixy Misa's pet monkey.

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

food for thought

Postby rational doc » Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:40 pm

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports on two studies estimating the hospital deaths due to medical errors at 44,000 to 98,000 annually, which would place medical errors in the top ten causes of death in the USA.Barbara Starfield's article in JAMA places the estimates even higher, citing a total of 225,000 deaths due to iatrogenic causes, which would place health-caused deaths as the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA.

Medical mistakes in hospitals cause 98,000 deaths or serious injuries each year in the United States, according to the Institute of Medicine's 2001 To Err is Human report. This makes medical errors the 8th leading cause of death in the US -- killing more people than breast cancer, motor vehicle collisions, or AIDS. And this huge number of deaths includes only those caused in hospitals, not what is done elsewhere in the medical system.

* 42% of people believed they had personally experienced a medical mistake (NPSF survey)
* 44,000 to 98,000 deaths annually from medical errors (Institute of Medicine)
* 225,000 deaths annually from medical errors including 106,000 deaths due to "nonerror adverse events of medications" (Starfield)
* 180,000 deaths annually from medication errors and adverse reactions (Holland)
* 20,000 annually to 88,000 deaths annually from nosocomial infections
* 2.9 to 3.7 percent of hospitalizations leading to adverse medication reactions
* 7,391 deaths resulted from medication errors (Institute of Medicine)
* 2.4 to 3.6 percent of hospital admissions were due to (prescription) medication events (Australian study)

does chiropractic have the death rate that medicine does?

as far as an example of holding onto arcane views, look at medicine's approach to nutrition, way behind the times, how did medicine react to the evidence showing the problems with smoking - my md used to smoke while doing an exam when i was a kid - the dangers with smoking was ignored by general practice until enough people died

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

there is clinical evidence supporting manipulation

Postby rational doc » Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:43 pm

not alot of hard science has been done

my opinion is that this is true becuase there is really no money in it, there is money in exploring new drugs and medical devices, how does anyone put a patent on manipulation

User avatar
Sock Monkey
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:56 am

Re: there is clinical evidence supporting manipulation

Postby Sock Monkey » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:00 am

rational doc wrote:not alot of hard science has been done


So, cite whatever hard science has been done.

my opinion is that this is true becuase there is really no money in it, there is money in exploring new drugs and medical devices, how does anyone put a patent on manipulation


We are not interested in your opinion about why you have no evidence. We are interested in the evidence itself.
Pixy Misa's pet monkey.

User avatar
Sock Monkey
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:56 am

Re: food for thought

Postby Sock Monkey » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:03 am

rational doc wrote:The Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports on two studies estimating the hospital deaths due to medical errors at 44,000 to 98,000 annually

[snip]

does chiropractic have the death rate that medicine does?


Does chiropractic even bother to keep statistics?

as far as an example of holding onto arcane views, look at medicine's approach to nutrition, way behind the times


How, exactly?

how did medicine react to the evidence showing the problems with smoking


The evidence showing health problems resulting from smoking was medical evidence.
Pixy Misa's pet monkey.

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Postby JJM » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:56 am

I am suspicious that "rational doc" (RD) is either a chiropractor, or the teenage child of one.

RD seems woefully uneducated:
>"Starfield," "Holland," and "Australian study" are not adequate literature references.
>Problems with real medicine do not work in favor of chiropractic. This is simple logic. The fact that other people are wrong does not make chiros right.
>RD studiously, I repeat, studiously avoids commenting on the idiotic nature of the "chiropractic subluxation," and its influence (rather, lack of it) on visceral disease. I recognize that a real physiatrist would not be presented with the failures of a chiro to treat conditions such as diabetes and so would not see that aspect of chiro practice. However, an educated doctor would recognize that fact. So RD's experience does not reflect the generality of chiro (and raises doubts that (s)he is a real doctor).

RD rambles a lot; but let's try to focus a bit. RD, please directly answer the following:
1) How do you diagnose a "chiropractic subluxation" as defined by the Association of Chiropractic Colleges, above?
2) Do you think chiros can treat ear infections (provide a real reference)- http://www.medicalartspress.com/BigImag ... 18344b.jpg?
3) Do you recognize that transplanted organs have no nervous connection to the spine, so the chiro claim that all organs rely on their connections to the spine is absurd?

Joe

(edited moments later)

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Re: food for thought

Postby corymaylett » Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:36 am

rational doc wrote:The Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports on two studies estimating the hospital deaths due to medical errors at 44,000 to 98,000 annually, which would place medical errors in the top ten causes of death in the USA.

I don't have time to verify your figures or pin down the definition of a "medical error," but any error is one too many, and there are certainly many more medical errors than there should be. Whether it's half your figures or twice as many, it's a serious problem, and one that's not particularly easy to fix.

However, whatever problems exist in the medical profession (and there are plenty) does not in any way validate chiropractic or dispel the fact that chiropractic, unlike mainstream medicine, is based upon bogus, pseudo-biologic nonsense.

rational doc wrote:does chiropractic have the death rate that medicine does?

That's a specious question. Chiropractors, as a general rule, are forbidden from engaging in procedures that have serious inherent risk. They can poke, prod, make referrals, perform all kinds of pseudoscientific diagnostic procedures and dispense bogus advice, but most places have laws against them writing prescriptions for controlled substances, administering general anesthesia, performing surgery, etc. I can only imagine the death rate if chiropractors were given free reign in these areas.

rational doc wrote:as far as an example of holding onto arcane views, look at medicine's approach to nutrition, way behind the times

Nonsense! Or maybe your idea of nutrition is in line with the organic health food fanatics (another subject, I suppose).

rational doc wrote:how did medicine react to the evidence showing the problems with smoking - my md used to smoke while doing an exam when i was a kid - the dangers with smoking was ignored by general practice until enough people died

I too have known medical doctors who smoked, were overweight, gotten addicted to drugs, ridden motorcycles without helmets, engaged in unsafe sex, etc. So what? These are just examples of individual people not following their own advice. It's certainly not evidence that the profession is (or was) blind to the dangers of these things.

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Postby JJM » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:11 pm

On Wed. Dec. 14, rational doc suggested that we look at the case "Wilk vs. AMA." I missed it at the time. Wilk sued the AMA for its policy that it was unethical for a doctor to refer someone to a chiropractor. The AMA lost as a matter of commerce:

"In 1987, federal court judge Susan Getzendanner concluded that during the 1960s "there was a lot of material available to the AMA Committee on Quackery that supported its belief that all chiropractic was unscientific and deleterious." The judge also noted that chiropractors still took too many x-rays. However, she ruled that the AMA had engaged in an illegal boycott. She concluded that the dominant reason for the AMA's anti-chiropractic campaign was the belief that chiropractic was not in the best interest of patients ..."
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/IOM/rosner.html
Wilk v. American Medical Association, 671 F.Supp. 1465 (N.D. Ill. 1987).
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... ota15.html

I emphasize, this case did not exonerate chiropractic health care. The court acknowledged that chiropractic is unscientific and deleterious. An illegal boycott is a commercial, rather than medical, finding.

Chiropractors like to say they beat the AMA in court, and hope we don't look to see what that meant.

Joe

rational doc
Account Locked
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 pm

boy, sorry for trying to have an exchange of ideas here

Postby rational doc » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:45 pm

i already visited the chiropractic subluxation issue, the debate is in it's effects on the human body, minor to severe? i've seen both in my office

i think what you need to also look at with the wilk case is that the AMA actively went out to destroy another profession - beyond merely trying to protect the public at large - the AMA is a trade union and was protecting it's turf, does this exonerate chiropractic, or course not, never said that it did

my point about nutrition and smoking is that medicine is slow to respond to some issues and faster with others, medicine is not perfect and should not be held as a sterling example to look up too when making comparisons with chiropractic

i never said that chiropractic is without problems, chiropractors vary in what they believe to be true - like md's - healthcare practitioners have varied opinions based on scientific opinion and our own personal experience.

what i am trying to get you guys to see is that you need to look at chiropractic in respect to everything else that is out there, not in a vaccuum

as far as organ transplants go, you do have nerve regrowth into the affected organs, otherwise you heat beat in a heart transplant would never get above the low inherent beat of the heart itself

chiropractors never said that an organ won't work without nerve supply, it is more of an issue as to how well it works in conjunction with the rest of the body and the needs of the body at that point

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Re: boy, sorry for trying to have an exchange of ideas here

Postby corymaylett » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:43 pm

rational doc wrote:my point about nutrition and smoking is that medicine is slow to respond to some issues and faster with others, medicine is not perfect and should not be held as a sterling example to look up too when making comparisons with chiropractic

i never said that chiropractic is without problems, chiropractors vary in what they believe to be true - like md's - healthcare practitioners have varied opinions based on scientific opinion and our own personal experience.

what i am trying to get you guys to see is that you need to look at chiropractic in respect to everything else that is out there, not in a vaccuum

I don't think the issue is a simple one of MDs being good and chiropractors being bad. There are obviously physicians who, for various reasons, are better, worse, brighter, behind in their skills, etc. And there are chiropractors who range all the way from the nut job straight faction to the more progressive wing that actually believe in things like immunization and antibiotics.

But still, medical research and medicine, unlike chiropractic, are clinical and applied sciences that are firmly grounded in the scientific method. And medicine will continue to advance as research progresses and practical medical applications developed from the results of this research.

Chiropractic, on the other hand, is rooted in the anachronistic (and simply wrong) notion of misaligned vertebrae and supposed nervous system impingements being the cause of human disease. Even the more progressive chiropractors have not firmly renounced this ridiculous notion from 100 years ago.

Until chiropractic and chiropractic colleges make a firm break with this legacy baloney and fully embrace science, clinical research and the current theories relating to physiology and disease, it will always be relegated to the quack corner of the health care field.


Return to “Healthcare”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest